[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: Determine standard fault requirements in WS-AT]
I am uncertain this made it to the list last Friday when the OASIS email and maintenance issues occurred. See attached. Thanks.
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- To: "ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:59:25 -0700
Protocol: WS-AT Artifact: spec Draft: AT specification, Public Review 01 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/20224/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-pr-01.doc (Note: The .pdf was used for this issue but the OASIS sites are currently unavailable for a reference) Issue type: design Related issues: 097, 102 (at a minimum) Issue description: The Public Review Draft of WS-AT references 3 standard faults in the State Tables in Section 9. Two of those faults are also referenced in Section 9 prose and their definitions exist in Section 5.1 and 5.2. What are the implementation requirements surrounding these standard faults? A similar question exists for WS-BA. Standardizing fault generation may increase in importance for the compensating transaction model, as that defined in WS-BA. Note, only WS-AT is addressed here. It is logical that guidance on standard fault usage should come in WS-AT (and WS-BA as appropriate) rather than WS-C. For WS-AT, two questions are important for discussion: * The requirements surrounding the use of standard faults in Section 9 in prose and the State Tables (and as supported in WS-C and WS-AT, Section 5.1 and 5.2) * Links to WS-C where those standard faults are defined, particularly those currently used in WS-AT Proposed resolution: Consider in Section 9 "State Tables", WS-AT: Change from: 503 ... Unexpected protocol messages will result in a fault 504 message, with a standard fault code such as Invalid State or Inconsistent Internal State. Change to: 503 ... Unexpected protocol messages SHOULD result in a fault 504 message. Such fault messages include those standard fault codes defined in [WS-COOR] and found earlier in Section 5, Transaction Faults. Reason for change: Invalid State fault is currently defined in WS-C but no reference exists in WS-AT to WS-C for that fault (WS-C includes its definition). Therefore, for simplicity, we have opted to realign the sentence and provide the WS-C reference. It is recognized there may be other faults than those specified here, such as those in WS-A. This reasoning was used in the rewording suggested. Any TC decision surrounding the rigor of guidance of the use of standard faults will drive whether or not further statements are made in Section 9, particularly regarding those faults used in the State Tables in that section. Our actions may also be related to any decisions surrounding the RFC 2119 review initiated by Actions #56-58, to part of #097, and to #102. Note: At this time, the OASIS sites are unavailable due to maintenance. This issue may be updated when the links are available. Thank you.--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]